Next Article in Journal
Epidemiology and Mechanisms of Resistance of Extensively Drug Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria
Next Article in Special Issue
Identification of Small Molecule Inhibitors of Staphylococcus aureus RnpA
Previous Article in Journal
Quality of Community Pharmacy Practice in Antibiotic Self-Medication Encounters: A Simulated Patient Study in Upper Egypt
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Antibiotics
Volume 8
Issue 2
10.3390/antibiotics8020036
antibiotics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Prevalence of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus sp. (MRS) in Different Companion Animals and Determination of Risk Factors for Colonization with MRS

by
Igor Loncaric
1,*,
Alexander Tichy
2,
Silvia Handler
1,3,
Michael P. Szostak
1,
Mareike Tickert
4,
Magda Diab-Elschahawi
5,
Joachim Spergser
1 and
Frank Künzel
4
1
Institute of Microbiology, University of Veterinary Medicine, 1210 Vienna, Austria
2
Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Veterinary Medicine, 1210 Vienna, Austria
3
FH Campus Wien, 1100 Wien, Austria
4
Clinical Unit of Internal Medicine Small Animals, University of Veterinary Medicine, 1210 Vienna, Austria
5
Division for Hospital Hygiene, Clinical Institute for Hygiene and Medical Microbiology, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Antibiotics 2019, 8(2), 36; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics8020036
Submission received: 26 February 2019 / Revised: 28 March 2019 / Accepted: 2 April 2019 / Published: 5 April 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Staphylococci Antimicrobial Resistance)
Versions Notes

Abstract

The aim of this study was to detect the prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus sp. (MRS) in populations of companion animals that either have previously been exposed or have not been exposed to antibiotic therapy or veterinary facilities, and if owners’ healthcare profession had an influence on colonization with MRS. In addition, the antimicrobial resistance pheno- and genotype were investigated and risks for colonization with MRS were assessed. During this study, 347 nasal swabs (dogs n = 152; cats n = 107; rabbits n = 88) were investigated for the presence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). In addition, 131 nasal swabs (dogs n = 79; cats n = 47; rabbits = 3; guinea pigs = 2) were examined for the presence of MRSA but also other MRS. In total, 23 MRS isolates belonged to nine staphylococcal species: Staphylococcus epidermidis (n = 11), Staphylococcus warneri (n = 3), Staphylococcus hominis (n = 2), Staphylococcus pseudintermedius (n = 2), and singletons Staphylococcus cohnii, Staphylococcus sciuri, Staphylococcus fleurettii, Staphylococcus lentus, and Staphylococcus haemolyticus. Twenty isolates displayed a multidrug-resistant phenotype. Various resistance and biocide resistance genes were detected among the examined staphylococci. Risk assessment for MRS colonization was conducted using a number of factors, including animal species, breed, age, gender, recent veterinary health care hospitalization, and antibiotic prescription, resulting in recent veterinary health care hospitalization being a significant risk factor. The detection of multidrug-resistant MRS in healthy animals is of importance due to their zoonotic potential.

1. Introduction

Members of the genus Staphylococcus (S.) are part of the normal skin flora of animals and humans. Staphylococci are important pathogens with a wide host range and are capable of causing serious infections of the skin and many other tissues [1,2].
Antimicrobial resistance among staphylococci is based on a wide variety of resistance genes. The most important is methicillin resistance mediated mainly by the mecA gene, which encodes for a penicillin-binding protein (PBP), PBP-2a [3]. Methicillin-resistant staphylococci (MRS) are important pathogens in human and veterinary medicine and are often multidrug resistant, extremely limiting therapeutic options. MRS are recognized as one of the most important risks for human and animal health [1,4]. In addition to antibiotic therapy, antibacterial disinfectants, such as those based on chlorhexidine gluconate and quaternary ammonium compounds (QACs), used as topical antibacterial therapy can provide an alternative treatment option for staphylococcal superficial infections and therefore limit the need for oral antibiotics [1,5]. On the other hand, there is a growing concern about the emergence of disinfectant-resistant staphylococci [6]. Reduced susceptibility to chlorhexidine gluconate and QACs is usually mediated by energy-dependent multidrug efflux proteins, which show increased expression in response to selective pressure from disinfectant use [7]. Plasmid-encoded efflux pump genes, such as qacA/B and qacC (smr), confer tolerance to both chlorhexidine gluconate and QACs [7]. The reported prevalence of MRS is higher in animals exposed to veterinary healthcare units and antimicrobial therapy [8,9,10], suggesting that these are risk factors for colonization. Despite high proximity to humans, the importance of companion animals as reservoirs of human infections is still poorly understood.
Therefore, the aims of the present study were to: (i) detect the prevalence of MRS in a different population of small animals, including animals exposed or not to antibiotic therapy and/or veterinary and/or human healthcare facilities; (ii) investigate the antimicrobial resistance pheno- and genotype; and (iii) determine risks for colonization with MRS.

2. Results

Within the first part of the study, which dealt solely with methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) colonization, MRSA could not be detected in any of the examined animals and, therefore, this part of the present study was not included in statistical analyses. During the second part of the present study, which dealt with all MRS (including S. aureus), nasal colonization with MRS was detected in 23 animals. Also, nasal colonization with MRSA could not be detected during the second part. Based on rpoB DNA sequencing, the predominant staphylococcal species was S. epidermidis (n = 11), followed by S. warneri (n = 3), S. hominis and S. pseudintermedius (each n = 2), and singletons of S. cohnii, S. fleurettii, S. haemolyticus, S. lentus, and S. sciuri (Table 1). Nucleotide accession numbers are MK648115–MK648137.
All isolates were penicillin-, cefoxitin-, or oxacillin- (in the case of S. pseudintermedius) resistant, mecC negative but mecA positive, and all but one isolate carried the blaZ gene. Among tested isolates, phenotypic resistance to erythromycin (n = 20) was most frequently detected followed by resistance to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (n = 11). erm(C) (n = 9) and dfrA (n = 13) were the most common resistance genes among tested isolates. Nine isolates were resistant to ciprofloxacin. Twenty isolates displayed a multidrug-resistant phenotype (an isolate that is not susceptible to at least one agent in at least three antimicrobial classes) [11] (Table 1). Beside the frequently detected erm(C) and dfrA resistance genes, the following resistance genes were infrequently detected among MRS: tetracycline resistance gene: tet(K), aminoglycoside resistance genes: aacA-aphD and aac(6′)-Ie, macrolides, lincosamides, and streptogramin B resistance gene: erm(B), macrolides and streptogramin B resistance gene: msr(A), trimethoprim resistance gene: dfrG, nonfluorinated phenicols resistance gene: catpC221, and fusidic acid resistance gene: fusC. Eight isolates harboured the qacA/B gene and five smr genes. The presence of both qac genes was detected in two isolates, one S. epidermidis and one S. warneri. SCCmec typing revealed that SCCmec type IV was predominant (n = 7). SCCmec type I was detected in two S. hominis isolates, whereas two S. pseudintermedius isolates carried SCCmec II–III. Two singletons, SCCmec II and V, were detected in S. sciuri and S. lentus, respectively. In nine isolates, SCCmec could not be assigned. dru type dt10a was most predominant (n = 10), whereas dt9a, dt11a, dt8b, dt11c, and dt7ah were also detected among tested isolates. Three isolates were non-typeable. All pheno- and genotyping results are summarized in Table 1. The Panton–Valentine leukocidin (PVL) gene, genes of staphylococcal enterotoxins (SE), and toxic shock syndrome toxin (TSST) could not be detected.
Regarding risk factors, only recent veterinary health care hospitalization differed significantly (p = 0.046) between animals with and without MRS colonization. Animals receiving antibiotic therapy had a 2.5 times higher chance to become colonized with MRS, but the value is not significant. In addition, all other evaluated risk factors did not differ significantly (Table 2).

3. Discussion

There are more than 2 million companion animals in Austria, but information regarding MRS other than MRSA isolated from these animals is practically nonexistent, except for one study [12]. To date, in Austria MRS could only be detected in companion animals of clinical facilities [13,14]. In the present study, several different MRS but not MRSA were isolated from different host species. Several studies have reported a low prevalence regarding carriage of S. aureus, S. pseudintermedius, and S. schleiferi in dogs and cats. These studies were summarized in Morris et al. [1]. A prevalence between 0.0% and 6% was detected in other studies with its highest observed in a study from the United States in pets of MRSA-infected owners [1]. Interestingly, a low presence of MRSA has also been observed among clinical specimens derived from companion animals in Austria [13]. Since the prevalence of carriage of methicillin-resistant S. pseudintermedius (MRSP) varies greatly (0.0 to 45%) in different studies, the prevalence of 1.5% observed during the present study is rather low [1].
Comparatively to methicillin-resistant coagulase-positive staphylococci, information on the prevalence of methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci (MRCoNS) in companion animals is scarce. Most of the MRS isolated in the present study belonged to the species S. epidermidis. S. epidermidis is the most reported nosocomial pathogen among MRCoNS in human medicine [15], and has often been detected in companion animals either as a primary pathogen [16] or isolated from healthy animals [17,18,19]. S. warneri is considered to be a common commensal and its methicillin-resistant (MR) variant has been rarely isolated from clinical sites [15] or as a colonizer [17,20]. During the present study, two canine isolates of MR S. hominis could be detected. S. hominis is second to S. epidermidis in causing infections in human medicine [2], and its MR variant has already been reported to be associated with infection in companion animals [15].
However, reports on the carriage of MR S. hominis in these animals are scarce. The other five staphylococcal isolates detected during this study were singletons (S. sciuri, S. fleurettii, S. lentus, S. hamolyticus, and S. cohnii). Three of the six belonged to the S. sciuri group (S. sciuri, S. fleurettii, and S. lentus). Members of the S. sciuri group are commensal animal-associated staphylococci. Species of this group are known to carry different homologues of the methicillin resistance gene mecA in their chromosomal DNA but also the mecA gene that is located on an SCCmec [21]. The prevalence of MR members of S. sciuri group is low (usually lower than 1%), as described in studies dealing with the carriage of MRS from companion animals [17,19]. Comparable prevalence rates were observed for MR S. haemolyticus [22]. MR S. haemolyticus has also been detected in infections of companion animals, albeit rarely [16]. Little is known about MR S. cohnii, which was isolated from a single swab during the present study, and its role as a causative agent of animal infection because it has only occasionally been isolated from animal infection [16,23].
The multidrug-resistant pheno- and genotypes observed in the majority of MRS examined during this study are in concordance with studies that examined the diversity of MRSP and MRCoNS isolated from companion animals [16,24]. The detection of staphylococci resistant to β-lactams combined with a high resistance frequency to fluoroquinolones, which are the most commonly used antibiotics in veterinary practices, represents important information. These two classes of antibiotics have been shown to represent a significant risk factor for the selection of MRSA [25] and, therefore, similar effects to other MRS are to be anticipated. Thus, MRS isolates additionally resistant to fluoroquinolones should be viewed with caution.
As for MRS carriage, relatively little is known regarding the resistance of MRS to antiseptics. In staphylococci, resistance to biocides, such as antibacterial disinfectants based on chlorhexidine gluconate and QACs, is efflux-mediated resistance conferred by the qac genes, which seem to be the most widespread [26]. In the present study, the determination of the biocide resistance genes qacA/B and smr was performed. These genes were detected among S. epidermidis, S. warneri, and S. hominis, which may suggest an association with resistance to antiseptics. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there are no studies describing the detection of qac genes in MRS, especially MRCoNS, associated with MRS colonization of companion animals. A comparable study [27] reported the detection of biocide-resistance genes among equine MRS. In that study, qac genes were detected in S. cohnii (qacB, qacG-like), S. haemolyticus (qacA, sh-fabI), and three other MRSA strains (qacB, qacA, sh-fabI). Information about S. epidermidis, S. warneri, and S. hominis of animal origin carrying qacA/B and smr genes is scarce. In a study on disinfectant resistance genes among bovine and caprine staphylococci from Norway, qacA/B was detected in bovine S. epidermidis as well as in bovine and ovine S. warneri. The smr gene was detected in caprine S. warneri as well as bovine S. epidermidis and S. hominis [28]. Our study had the limitation that biocide susceptibility testing was not performed. Therefore, it was not possible to associate the detection of qac genes with the increase in minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) values. In addition, studies that dealt with the presence of qac genes, and the determination of minimum bactericidal concentrations in staphylococci of animal origin, observed no association between detection of qacA/B and smr genes and higher MBC values in comparison to qac-negative strains [27,28].
Even though previous antimicrobial therapy is recognized to be a risk factor for the development of infection/colonization with MRS [29,30], the difference between colonized and non-colonized animals was not significant. However, animals receiving antibiotic therapy in the present study had a 2.5 times higher chance to become colonized, and the prior hospitalization of animals was determined to be a risk factor for MRS colonization in [29,30], which is in a concordance with the result obtained during the present study.

4. Materials and Methods

The study was discussed and approved by the institutional ethics and animal welfare committee in accordance with Good Scientific Practice (GSP) guidelines and national legislation.
To determine the presence of nasal colonization of MRSA, the study was divided into two parts: (1) 347 nasal swabs (dogs n = 152; cats n = 107; rabbits n = 88) were investigated for the presence of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) solely; and (2) 181 nasal swabs (dogs n = 107; cats n = 47; rabbits = 3; guinea pigs = 2) were examined for the presence of MRSA but also other MRS (Table S1). Swabs for cultivation experiments were transported from the veterinary clinic to the laboratory within 2 h of collection and processed in the laboratory within 4 h.
Isolation of MRS was performed as previously described [31,32]. Methicillin resistance was confirmed by agar disk diffusion as well as PCRs for mecA and mecC [32]. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed by agar disk diffusion according to CLSI standards [33] for the following antimicrobial agents (µg/disk): cefoxitin (30), oxacillin (1), ciprofloxacin (5), amikacin (30), gentamicin (10), tetracycline (30), erythromycin (15), clindamycin (2), chloramphenicol (30), trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (1.25 + 23.75), nitrofurantoin (300), rifampicin (5), and linezolid (30) (Beckton Dickinson (BD); Heidelberg, Germany). S. aureus ATCC® 29213 was used as quality control. Isolates were subjected to SCCmec typing as described previously [31]. Isolates were further subjected to dru typing [34]. Detection of antibiotic resistance genes was performed by PCR. PCR was performed for detecting the presence of the following antibiotic resistance genes: blaZ (confers resistance to penicillins except for isoxazolyl-penicillins) [35]; erm(A), erm(B), and erm(C) (confer resistance to macrolides, lincosamides, and streptogramin B) [13,36]; msr(A) (confers resistance to macrolides and streptogramin B) [13]; cfr (confers resistance to all phenicols, lincosamides, oxazolidinones, pleuromutilins, and streptogramin A) [36]; fexA (confers resistance to all phenicols) [37]; catpC194, catpC221, and catpC223 (confer resistance to nonfluorinated phenicols and chloramphenicol) [38]; aac-aphD (confers resistance to the aminoglycosides gentamicin, kanamycin, tobramycin, and, when overexpressed, to amikacin) [13]; ant(6′)-Ia and str (confer resistance to the aminoglycoside streptomycin) [39]; dfrA, dfrD, dfrG, and dfrK (confer resistance to trimethoprim) [13,40]; tet(K) and tet(L) (confer resistance to tetracyclines, except for minocycline and glycylcyclines) [13,41,42]; tet(M) (confers resistance to tetracyclines, including minocycline but excluding glycylcyclines) [13]; and tet(O) [40]. In the case of S. pseudintermedius, the presence of SCCmec II–III was demonstrated by multiplex PCR as described elsewhere [24]. PCRs targeting the qacA/B (confers high-level resistance to antiseptics) and smr (confers low-level resistance to antiseptics) genes were performed as previously described [26]. PCRs targeting Panton–Valentine leukocidin (PVL) genes and the detection of staphylococcal enterotoxins (SE) and toxic shock syndrome toxin (TSST) were performed as previously described [13]. All PCRs within the present study were performed using the standard protocols. Isolates were identified to the species level by rpoB sequencing [43]. All rpoB DNA sequences were deposited into GenBank.
In order to determine risk factors during the second part of the present study, differences between species (dog, cat, rabbit, guinea pig), breed, age, gender, husbandry conditions (indoor/outdoor), recent veterinary health care hospitalization (during the last 6 months), and pretreatment with antimicrobial substances (during the last 6 months) for colonization with MRS were analysed using a Chi-square test. In addition, statistical analysis included whether there was close contact between animal and owner and whether the owner was a health care professional. In order to evaluate whether the origin and health status of animals might be risk factors for colonization, three groups were generated: Group 1 (clinically healthy animals from employees of the University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna), Group 2 (clinically healthy animals from owners other than employees of the University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna), and Group 3 (animals that were presented as patients at the University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna). A value of 5% (p < 0.05) was considered significant for all statistical analyses. Calculations were performed using IBM SPSS v24® (IBM Corp., Armonck, NY, USA).

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, the present study is the first dealing with the carriage of different MRS from companion animals in Austria. Due to high proximity of companion animals to humans, the detection of MRS in healthy animals is of importance, since the transmission of MRS strains between companion animals and humans may occur and, therefore, requires further prudent use of antibiotics in veterinary settings.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2079-6382/8/2/36/s1. Table S1: detailed information on examined animals: * MRS: methicillin-resistant staphylococci, MRSA: methicillin-resistant S. aureus; ** m = male, w = female, mk = male castrated, wk = female castrated; *** yes = indoor, no = outdoor; NA = not available; bold/italic = positive samples.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.L., M.D.-E., and F.K.; Methodology, I.L., A.T., S.H., M.P.S., M.T., M.D.-E., J.S., and F.K.; Validation, I.L., M.P.S., M.D.-E., J.S., and F.K.; Formal analysis and investigation, I.L., A.T., S.H., M.T., M.D.-E., J.S., and F.K.; Writing—original draft preparation, I.L. and F.K.; Writing—review and editing, I.L., A.T., M.P.S., M.D.-E., J.S., and F.K.

Funding

This study was supported by internal funding from the Institute of Microbiology and the Clinical Unit of Internal Medicine Small Animals.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to all students of veterinary medicine who helped us during this project.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Morris, D.O.; Loeffler, A.; Davis, M.F.; Guardabassi, L.; Weese, J.S. Recommendations for approaches to meticillin-resistant staphylococcal infections of small animals: Diagnosis, therapeutic considerations and preventative measures.: Clinical Consensus Guidelines of the World Association for Veterinary Dermatology. Vet. Dermatol. 2017, 28, 304-e69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Becker, K.; Heilmann, C.; Peters, G. Coagulase-negative staphylococci. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2014, 27, 870–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Shore, A.C.; Coleman, D.C. Staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec: Recent advances and new insights. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 2013, 303, 350–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Becker, K.; Ballhausen, B.; Köck, R.; Kriegeskorte, A. Methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus isolates: The “mec alphabet” with specific consideration of mecC, a mec homolog associated with zoonotic S. aureus lineages. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 2014, 304, 794–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Warren, D.K.; Prager, M.; Munigala, S.; Wallace, M.A.; Kennedy, C.R.; Bommarito, K.M.; Mazuski, J.E.; Burnham, C.A. Prevalence of qacA/B Genes and Mupirocin Resistance among Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Isolates in the Setting of Chlorhexidine Bathing without Mupirocin. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2016, 37, 590–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR). Research Strategy to Address the Knowledge Gaps on the Antimicrobial Resistance Effects of Biocides; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2010; Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_o_028.pdf (accessed on 23 February 2019).
  7. Vali, L.; Davies, S.E.; Lai, L.L.; Dave, J.; Amyes, S.G. Frequency of biocide resistance genes, antibiotic resistance and the effect of chlorhexidine exposure on clinical methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2008, 61, 524–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Nienhoff, U.; Kadlec, K.; Chaberny, I.F.; Verspohl, J.; Gerlach, G.F.; Kreienbrock, L.; Schwarz, S.; Simon, D.; Nolte, I. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius among dogs admitted to a small animal hospital. Vet. Microbiol. 2011, 150, 191–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Bergström, A.; Gustafsson, C.; Leander, M.; Fredriksson, M.; Grönlund, U.; Trowald-Wigh, G. Occurrence of methicillin-resistant staphylococci in surgically treated dogs and the environment in a Swedish animal hospital. J. Small Anim. Pract. 2012, 53, 404–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Huerta, B.; Maldonado, A.; Ginel, P.J.; Tarradas, C.; Gómez-Gascón, L.; Astorga, R.J.; Luque, I. Risk factors associated with the antimicrobial resistance of staphylococci in canine pyoderma. Vet. Microbiol. 2011, 150, 302–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  11. Sweeney, M.T.; Lubbers, B.V.; Schwarz, S.; Watts, J.L. Applying definitions for multidrug resistance, extensive drug resistance and pandrug resistance to clinically significant livestock and companion animal bacterial pathogens. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2018, 73, 1460–1463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Loncaric, I.; Künzel, F.; Klang, A.; Wagner, R.; Licka, T.; Grunert, T.; Feßler, A.T.; Geier-Dömling, D.; Rosengarten, R.; Müller, E.; et al. Carriage of meticillin-resistant staphylococci between humans and animals on a small farm. Vet. Dermatol. 2016, 27, 191-e48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Loncaric, I.; Künzel, F.; Licka, T.; Simhofer, H.; Spergser, J.; Rosengarten, R. Identification and characterization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) from Austrian companion animals and horses. Vet. Microbiol. 2014, 168, 381–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Loncaric, I.; Künzel, F. Sequence type 398 meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection in a pet rabbit. Vet. Dermatol. 2013, 24, 370–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Schoenfelder, S.M.; Lange, C.; Eckart, M.; Hennig, S.; Kozytska, S.; Ziebuhr, W. Success through diversity—How Staphylococcus epidermidis establishes as a nosocomial pathogen. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 2010, 300, 380–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Kern, A.; Perreten, V. Clinical and molecular features of methicillin-resistant, coagulase-negative staphylococci of pets and horses. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2013, 68, 1256–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Bagcigil, F.A.; Moodley, A.; Baptiste, K.E.; Jensen, V.F.; Guardabassi, L. Occurrence, species distribution, antimicrobial resistance and clonality of methicillin- and erythromycin-resistant staphylococci in the nasal cavity of domestic animals. Vet. Microbiol. 2007, 121, 307–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Weiss, S.; Kadlec, K.; Fessler, A.T.; Schwarz, S. Identification and characterization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Staphylococcus haemolyticus and Staphylococcus pettenkoferi from a small animal clinic. Vet. Microbiol. 2013, 167, 680–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Han, J.I.; Yang, C.H.; Park, H.M. Prevalence and risk factors of Staphylococcus spp. carriage among dogs and their owners: A cross-sectional study. Vet. J. 2016, 212, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Davis, J.A.; Jackson, C.R.; Fedorka-Cray, P.J.; Barrett, J.B.; Brousse, J.H.; Gustafson, J.; Kucher, M. Carriage of methicillin-resistant staphylococci by healthy companion animals in the US. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2014, 59, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Nemeghaire, S.; Argudín, M.A.; Feßler, A.T.; Hauschild, T.; Schwarz, S.; Butaye, P. The ecological importance of the Staphylococcus sciuri species group as a reservoir for resistance and virulence genes. Vet. Microbiol. 2014, 171, 342–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ruzauskas, M.; Siugzdiniene, R.; Klimiene, I.; Virgailis, M.; Mockeliunas, R.; Vaskeviciute, L.; Zienius, D. Prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus haemolyticus in companion animals: A cross-sectional study. Ann. Clin. Microbiol. Antimicrob. 2014, 13, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Bean, D.C.; Wigmore, S.M.; Wareham, D.W. Draft Genome Sequence of Staphylococcus cohnii subsp. urealyticus Isolated from a Healthy Dog. Genome Announc. 2017, 5, e01628-16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Perreten, V.; Kadlec, K.; Schwarz, S.; Grönlund Andersson, U.; Finn, M.; Greko, C.; Moodley, A.; Kania, S.A.; Frank, L.A.; Bemis, D.A.; et al. Clonal spread of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius in Europe and North America: An international multicentre study. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2010, 65, 1145–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Faires, M.C.; Traverse, M.; Tater, K.C.; Pearl, D.L.; Weese, J.S. Methicillin-resistant and -susceptible Staphylococcus aureus infections in dogs. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2010, 16, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Sidhu, M.S.; Heir, E.; Leegaard, T.; Wiger, K.; Holck, A. Frequency of disinfectant resistance genes and genetic linkage with beta-lactamase transposon Tn552 among clinical staphylococci. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2002, 46, 2797–2803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Couto, N.; Belas, A.; Kadlec, K.; Schwarz, S.; Pomba, C. Clonal diversity, virulence patterns and antimicrobial and biocide susceptibility among human, animal and environmental MRSA in Portugal. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2015, 70, 2483–2487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bjorland, J.; Steinum, T.; Kvitle, B.; Waage, S.; Sunde, M.; Heir, E. Widespread distribution of disinfectant resistance genes among staphylococci of bovine and caprine origin in Norway. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2005, 43, 4363–4368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Weese, J.S.; Lefebvre, S.L. Risk factors for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization in horses admitted to a veterinary teaching hospital. Can. Vet. J. 2007, 48, 921–926. [Google Scholar]
  30. Vincze, S.; Brandenburg, A.G.; Espelage, W.; Stamm, I.; Wieler, L.H.; Kopp, P.A.; Lübke-Becker, A.; Walther, B. Risk factors for MRSA infection in companion animals: Results from a case-control study within Germany. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 2014, 304, 787–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Loncaric, I.; Kübber-Heiss, A.; Posautz, A.; Stalder, G.L.; Hoffmann, D.; Rosengarten, R.; Walzer, C. Characterization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus spp. carrying the mecC gene, isolated from wildlife. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2013, 68, 2222–2225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Loncaric, I.; Kübber-Heiss, A.; Posautz, A.; Ruppitsch, W.; Lepuschitz, S.; Schauer, B.; Feßler, A.T.; Krametter-Frötscher, R.; Harrison, E.M.; Holmes, M.A.; et al. Characterization of mecC gene-carrying coagulase-negative Staphylococcus spp. isolated from various animals. Vet. Microbiol. 2019, 230, 138–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing: Twenty-Forth Informational Supplement; M100-27; CLSI: Wayne, PA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  34. Schauer, B.; Krametter-Frotscher, R.; Knauer, R.; Ehricht, R.; Monecke, S.; Fessler, A.T.; Schwarz, S.; Grunert, T.; Spergser, J.; Loncaric, I. Diversity of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) isolated from Austrian ruminants and New World camelids. Vet. Microbiol. 2019, 215, 77–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Ferreira, A.M.; Martins, K.B.; Silva, V.R.; Mondelli, A.L.; Cunha, M.L. Correlation of phenotypic tests with the presence of the blaZ gene for detection of beta-lactamase. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2017, 48, 159–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Martineau, F.; Picard, F.J.; Lansac, N.; Ménard, C.; Roy, P.H.; Ouellette, M.; Bergeron, M.G. Correlation between the resistance genotype determined by multiplex PCR assays and the antibiotic susceptibility patterns of Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2000, 44, 231–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Kehrenberg, C.; Schwarz, S. Distribution of florfenicol resistance genes fexA and cfr among chloramphenicol-resistant Staphylococcus isolates. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2006, 50, 1156–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Schnellmann, C.; Gerber, V.; Rossano, A.; Jaquier, V.; Panchaud, Y.; Doherr, M.G.; Thomann, A.; Straub, R.; Perreten, V. Presence of new mecA and mph(C) variants conferring antibiotic resistance in Staphylococcus spp. isolated from the skin of horses before and after clinic admission. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2006, 44, 4444–4454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Hauschild, T.; Vuković, D.; Dakić, I.; Ježek, P.; Djukić, S.; Dimitrijević, V.; Stepanović, S.; Schwarz, S. Aminoglycoside resistance in members of the Staphylococcus sciuri group. Microb. Drug Resist. 2007, 13, 77–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Argudín, M.A.; Tenhagen, B.A.; Fetsch, A.; Sachsenröder, J.; Käsbohrer, A.; Schroeter, A.; Hammerl, J.A.; Hertwig, S.; Helmuth, R.; Bräunig, J.; et al. Virulence and resistance determinants of German Staphylococcus aureus ST398 isolates from nonhuman sources. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2011, 77, 3052–3060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Aarestrup, F.M.; AgersŁ, Y.; Ahrens, P.; Jørgensen, J.C.; Madsen, M.; Jensen, L.B. Antimicrobial susceptibility and presence of resistance genes in staphylococci from poultry. Vet. Microbiol. 2000, 74, 353–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Dale, G.; Langen, H.; Page, M.; Then, R.; Stüber, D. Cloning and Charakterization of a Novel, Plasmid-Encoded Trimethoprim-Resistant Dihydrofolate Reductase from Staphylococcus haemolyticus MUR313. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 1995, 39, 1920–1924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  43. Mellmann, A.; Becker, K.; von Eiff, C.; Keckevoet, U.; Schumann, P.; Harmsen, D. Sequencing and staphylococci identification. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2006, 12, 333–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Molecular characterization and antimicrobial resistance profile of the investigated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus sp. isolates.
Table 1. Molecular characterization and antimicrobial resistance profile of the investigated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus sp. isolates.
IDSpeciesSCCmecdru TypeNon β-lactam Phenotype **Non b-lactam Resistant GenesQAC Genes ***
A 36S. epidermidisnt *dt10aCIP, AMK, GEN, ERY, CLIdfrA, erm(C)qacA/B
A 39S. epidermidisIVdt10aCIP, TET, ERY, CLIdfrA, erm(C)qacA/B
A 40S. epidermidisIVdt10aTET, ERY, CLIdfrA, erm(C), tet(K)
A 41S. pseudintermediusII–IIIdt9aCIP, AMK, GEN, ERY, CLI, SXTaacA-aphD, erm(B), dfrG
A 50S. epidermidisntdt11aAMK, GEN, TET, ERY, SXTmsr(A), aacA-aphD, tet(K) drfG, aac(6′)-Iesmr
A 57S. sciuriIIdt8bAMK, GEN, ERYdfrA, msr(A), aacA-aph, aac(6′)-Ie
A 63S. warneriIVdt10aERY, SXTdfrA, msr(A)
A 68S. epidermidisntnt dfrA, aacA-aphD, erm(C)qacA/B
A 72S. pseudintermediusII–IIIdt9aCIP, AMK, GEN, TET, ERY, CLI, SXTaacA-aphD, tet(K), erm(B), dfrG, aac(6′)-Ie
A 73S. warneriIVdt10aERYmsr(A)smr
A 112S. epidermidisIVdt10a dfrA
A 127S. warneriIVdt10aERYdfrA, msr(A)qacA/B, smr
A 141S. cohniintdt11aERY, SXTmsr(A)
B 7S. lentusVdt10aCIP, GEN, TET, ERY, SXTaacA-aphD, tet(K), aac(6′)-Ie
B 23S. epidermidisntntCIP, ERY, CLI, SXTdfrA, erm(C)
B 25S. epidermidisIVdt8bERY, CLIdfrA, erm(C)qacA/B
B 27S. epidermidisntdt8bCIP, TET, ERY, CLIdfrA, msr(A), tet(K)
B 37S. epidermidisntdt10aCIP, AMK, GEN, TET, ERY, CLI, SXTdfrA, aacA-aphD, erm(C), aac(6′)-IeqacA/B, smr
B 49S. fleurettiintntTET, CHLtet(K), catpC221
B 50S. haemolyticusntdt11cCIP, AMK, GEN, ERY, CLI, SXTmsr(A), aacA-aphD, erm(C), aac(6′)-Ie
C 10S. epidermidisntdt10aERY, CHL, SXTdfrA, catpC221qacA/B
162S. hominisIdt7ahERY, CLI, CHL, SXTerm(C), fusC, catpC221smr
166S. hominisIdt9aERYmsr(A)qacA/B
* non-typeable. ** CIP = ciprofloxacin; AMK = amikacin; GEN = gentamicin; TET = tetracycline; CHL = chloramphenicol; ERY = erythromycin; CLI = clindamycin; SXT = trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. *** Quaternary Ammonium Compounds resistance genes.
Table 2. Statistical analysis of risk factors.
Table 2. Statistical analysis of risk factors.
Risk Factorp Value
Species (dog, cat, rabbit, guinea pig)0.664
Breed0.833
Age0.182
Gender0.06
Husbandry conditions (indoor/outdoor)0.502
Recent veterinary health care hospitalization (during the last 6 months)0.046
Pretreatment with antimicrobial substances (during the last 6 months)0.096
Close contact0.2
Owner’s health care profession0.223
Origin and health status of animals0.993

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Loncaric, I.; Tichy, A.; Handler, S.; Szostak, M.P.; Tickert, M.; Diab-Elschahawi, M.; Spergser, J.; Künzel, F. Prevalence of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus sp. (MRS) in Different Companion Animals and Determination of Risk Factors for Colonization with MRS. Antibiotics 2019, 8, 36. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics8020036

AMA Style

Loncaric I, Tichy A, Handler S, Szostak MP, Tickert M, Diab-Elschahawi M, Spergser J, Künzel F. Prevalence of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus sp. (MRS) in Different Companion Animals and Determination of Risk Factors for Colonization with MRS. Antibiotics. 2019; 8(2):36. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics8020036

Chicago/Turabian Style

Loncaric, Igor, Alexander Tichy, Silvia Handler, Michael P. Szostak, Mareike Tickert, Magda Diab-Elschahawi, Joachim Spergser, and Frank Künzel. 2019. "Prevalence of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus sp. (MRS) in Different Companion Animals and Determination of Risk Factors for Colonization with MRS" Antibiotics 8, no. 2: 36. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics8020036

APA Style

Loncaric, I., Tichy, A., Handler, S., Szostak, M. P., Tickert, M., Diab-Elschahawi, M., Spergser, J., & Künzel, F. (2019). Prevalence of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus sp. (MRS) in Different Companion Animals and Determination of Risk Factors for Colonization with MRS. Antibiotics, 8(2), 36. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics8020036

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop